With the passing of Heath Ledger Warner Bros has had to rethink the marketing of the upcoming Batman sequel, The Dark Knight, according to the article, Ledger's Joker a Serious Topic, by Joal Ryan for E!.
Up until yesterday the official movie site featured the first movie poster (pictured) and the first two teaser trailers all of which centre heavily on Heath's character, The Joker. Today if you click over to the site you'll get a simple memorial page to Heath (pictured below) that is classy and pretty much says all that needs to be said.
Unlike many people when I first heard Heath had been cast as the Joker I thought director Christopher Nolan's choice was inspired. Being familiar with Ledger's career and knowing that he was always more aligned with the Johnny Depp school of thought about acting (i.e. taking on roles that are challenging and edgy rather than popular and easy to digest.) I knew Heath would be throwing everything into his performance for The Dark Knight.
Although I'm a Batman fan from way back it is not the excitement of seeing Batman again that is driving me to see the second installment. It is the anticipation of seeing the Joker redefined for the new Batman world. The Joker, as a character, is every bit as recognisable and iconic as Batman. Making him fit into this darker and more realistic Gotham city without his clown-like appearance looking out of place is a challenge in its self.
By all reports coming from the production (and based purely on footage/photos released so far) it appears Heath's Joker is going to be something special. Whilst the E! article contemplates whether this is how Heath would want to be remembered (as a psychopathic killer), should this become his last role (Heath was part way through filming a Terry Gilliam picture at the time of his death), I think, given the effort and work he's put into it, going out with a bang is not a bad way to go!
I hope Warner Bros don't play down marketing The Dark Knight around The Joker. Although I have no idea how good or bad Heath is as The Joker it sounds like a performance that should be celebrated in memory of the kind of 'give it everything' actor that Heath was.
Why so serious? Applaud this one with two hands. Two hands to the Joker.
Having not read the original novel, by Richard Matheson, published in 1954, nor having seen either of the two previous film adaptations (The Last Man on Earth - 1964, The Omega Man - 1971), I came to I am Legend with no real expectations other than it stared Will Smith and he was playing, Lieutenant Colonel Richard Neville, the sole human survivor on planet Earth.
I had heard of The Omega Man, and, when a film interests me enough I usually end up rummaging around the Internet Movie Database to see what information I can dig up.
From this point on, if you haven't seen I am Legend then the rest of this article does contain spoilers so you may wish to stop reading now. As always my intention with these movie articles is to discuss my thoughts about the film, rather than review it as a whole.
I thought the concept of humanity being wiped out by a cure for cancer that went bad (essentially a modified version of the measles virus) was very plausible in today's climate of scientific experimentation (the film is set in our contemporary world). Certainly a much stronger concept than as the result of biological warfare of the previous film, The Omega Man.
With that in mind it does come across, some what unbelievable, that the entire world could become infected. Granted the virus could be caught from the air, the world is a big place and vast oceans have been known to keep viruses at bay between continents. That aside, world wide supply of gas masks and other such breathing apparatus, would surely buy those, not at ground zero, some time to set up environmentally sealed biospheres.
What was the point of quarantining Manhattan Island if the virus was airborne and why weren't those soldiers, screening people for the virus, wearing some kind of breathing filter given that people with the virus were showing up? Not exactly the 'take no chances' precautions we see used in the real world in the event of an anthrax scare.
I know this kind of nit picking is bad. You don't want to let the real world get in the way of story telling and trust me it didn't. For the most part I really enjoyed this movie and it's story - with exception to the rather abrupt ending. It's only afterwards that I've begun to think more about the plausibility of the films virus (known as KV or the Krippin Virus. Named after its creator Dr. Alice Krippin (Emma Thompson))
I did like the concept of the Dark Seekers as the product of the virus. Not knowing much about the story before hand I was surprised to see these other 'humans' in the film.
In the original book the Dark Seekers were actually vampires, a concept that I'm glad was dropped from the current movie, though they did display vampire-like qualities beyond light sensitivity - such as going for the throat when attacking.
Also, in the original novel, the vampires were much more articulate and less primal than the Dark Seekers. I think, I am Legend, the movie, would have been a very different film if the Dark Seekers were on speaking terms. I think it would also be much harder for Neville to hunt them down for his tests on finding a cure.
As I said earlier, I wasn't that impressed by the ending. As we head towards the climax the Dark Seekers seem less and less affected by light, including open flame (which I imagine would also be rather detrimental to light sensitive skin).
It seems to me setting up a wall of UV lights around Neville's house should have been more than enough of a deterrent to the Dark Seekers - even in plague proportions. Neville seemed to have access to power and had plenty of time to barricade his home and set up a minefield of explosives. But in the end none of this was effective.
Neville sacrifices himself to save the human race even though he believes he is the last man on earth (a theory that doesn't quite stand up as well after that damn woman and her kid turned up and shot a hole through it).
Speaking of that woman and her kid, why does Neville not ask the question... Where have you been for the last three years? We learn next to nothing about her or her past yet we have to be happy with her bringing the movie to its final conclusion.
Perhaps it should've ended like the book, with us believing that the last man alive has just died and we've been lucky enough to follow those last few days/years. Man becoming nothing more than a legend.
Help! The Beatles are unwatchable!
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Having watched as much of the digitally remastered Beatles movie, Help! (1965), on public TV as I could stand I've come to the conclusion that not all Beatles memorabilia / projects (call this what you will) should be revived and remembered.
It's not that this movie is particularly bad. The acting is fine. Some of the comedy works and, to agree with some of the people at the link above, the movie does have some very quotable lines. It's just that the plot is so ridiculous. I'm sure it was meant to be over the top and just a bit of fun to showcase the band and the music but it goes too far into extreme silliness.
To get away with this kind of silliness you have to start with a premise that is credible. This movie has a very culturally important sacrificial ring stuck on Ringo's (of course) finger. In the real world you'd just explain the situation to the famous drummer and I'm sure he'd be obliging (might even pay for his own tub of butter to help remove the ring).
However, for some reason, the ring has to recovered covertly by its obscure, Asian Cult owners and from there stupidity ensues. Complicated further by some mad scientist type who believes this ring could help him 'rule the world' (why I don't know? It's a symbolic ring with no real power or significance to anyone other than it's owners).
Maybe I missed something along the way but finally, after 'Paul's tiny adventure on the floor' I decided enough was enough and switched it off. Even as a showcase for The Beatles superb music, there just wasn't enough of it to keep me hooked.
All I can say is that you have to be a real Beatles fan to endure the entire movie. Clearly this was made at a time when the band could release virtually anything and it would find an audience to make it all worthwhile.
Personally this movie probably needs to be remembered for its highlights because as a whole, for me at least, it is unwatchable.
National Treasure: Book of Secrets
Monday, December 24, 2007
National Treasure: Book of Secrets is a fairly easy to watch, fun movie. Like all treasure hunt movies the ending is largely predictable but what makes them engaging and fun is the journey following the trail. Watching just how everything comes together.
As per usual with my movie posts, this article is my thoughts on the film. If you're looking for a story outline try visiting the official web site or maybe read this review by Jason P. Vargo of DVDTown.com.
I haven't seen the first film in this series but I knew that because this was an entirely new adventure for these characters I wouldn't be at much of a disadvantage. There are some obvious references to the first film and maybe even some subtle ones that I missed but I don't think any were critical to my understanding of the plot.
Nicolas Cage plays treasure hunter, Ben Gates, a largely forgettable character in the movie world. Much like Robert Langdon (played by Tom Hanks) in The Da Vinci Code. A movie that both these films should be compared to and not the Indiana Jones series as some critics have. As I recall the original National Treasure movie was released to try and capitalize on the growing interest of the Da Vinci Code novel and it's imminent release as a film at the time.
Robert Langdon, the sometimes nerdy super brain yet ordinary guy, is Ben Gates peer not the swash buckling action hero that is Indiana Jones. Everyone remembers Indy. Only the die hard National Treasure fans will remember Ben.
Ben is surrounded by a small team of people, most notable is his assistant, Riley (played by Justin Bartha), who has a talent for breaking into almost any security system you care to name like most of us log on to the internet (difficulty factor zero). Ben may be the 'cool' nerd of the picture but Riley is the 'super geek' with out a doubt.
I have to say, I do like this kind of film where they try to string together a real (or even completely fictional) mystery together using real world historical facts, icons, artifacts, legends and stories. It tends to give the plot that hint of 'well this may possibly be true' even though you know it probably isn't.
For example, I'm sure anyone who sees this film will forever be wondering if the twin Resolute Desks, one owned by the Queen of England and the other by the President of the USA, are really built with a secret compartment opened by a combination lock system involving the correct sequence of open drawers? Do you think the real Queen or President saw this film and then went back home and checked - just to be sure?
What about the 'Book of Secrets', the President of the USA's book, handed on to each consecutive President, revealing the truth about every mystery, conspiracy theory and more that Joe and Jane public can only speculate upon? It's not a spoiler talking about this but I was disappointed by its appearance. Just for a brief second I thought they'd go all Da Vinci Code and reveal that this book wasn't actually a literal book but then they found it. Considering how old it's meant to be, it didn't seem to be that big - maybe there are fewer conspiracies than we think?
The movie does seem to hint at another film in this series involving page 47 of the President's book. Unless I missed something but regardless, I can see this book playing a crucial role in filling big gaping plot holes in future films in the franchise.
I don't want to over analyze the film because it does have some really questionable moments that only make sense if you're along for the ride. If you stop and think too hard you'll go from one 'oh that would never happen' to the next and completely spoil your experience.
It is a fun film and comparing the movie to the movie trailer I suspect there were quite a number of deleted scenes that would make the DVD version a really interesting purchase. (There are scenes in the trailer that aren't present in the final film, such as in the trailer there are scenes at the Lincoln Memorial).
If you enjoyed The Da Vinci Code then this will be a film you'll enjoy too. It's not quite as intelligent with the plot but it is fun and the humor works really well.
Jack Nicholson, Anger Management and The Joker
Sunday, October 14, 2007
I was watching the Jack Nicholson, Adam Sandler movie, Anger Management on DVD and I got to thinking just how good an actor Jack Nicholson is. That's no big revelation really. I'm fairly certain Jack's won a number of awards for his work over the years. However I'll continue on.
On the special features of the Anger Management DVD someone comments that almost everyone has a Jack Nicholson impression, because Jack's voice is unmistakably his. Team Jack's voice with the man himself and you have a living icon that few people in the western world would fail to recognise.
When you go to see a movie with Jack Nicholson, as soon as he appears you instantly recognise him as Jack, yet, in every single movie I've ever seen him in, he immediately becomes the character. You're no longer watching Jack Nicholson.
I particularly like his character, the unorthodox anger management therapist, Dr Buddy Rydell, in Anger Management. Nobody plays a Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde character quite like Jack. Sane and credible one minute, unhinged and possibly dangerous the next. Very cool.
Not unlike Jack's famous interpretation of The Joker in Tim Burton's big screen adaption of Batman. Whilst I am looking forward to Heath Ledger's version of The Joker in Chris Nolan's upcoming Batman sequel, The Dark Knight, I think Jack's Joker was just right for the world Tim created.
I'm possibly just rambling with no real point to this, other than it will be interesting to see how Heath and Jack's Jokers compare. I certainly couldn't imagine Jack's version in the new Batman movies but I would love to see how Jack would've interpreted the role under Chris' direction.
I've no doubt he would've done an exceptional job.
Official The Dark Knight Teaser Trailer posted by t3knoman00
The Trouble with Superman.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
I'm probably one of the last Superman fans to see the latest movie Superman Returns. I missed it in the theatres and it's taken this long for me to see it on DVD. This isn't meant to be a review but my overall impression was that the movie got almost everything right.
Brandon Routh is perfectly cast. There's enough of Reeve in Brandon's performance to say this is the Superman we remember from the previous films. There has to be because this movie is a sequel not a re-imagining of the franchise like Batman Returns is.
Kate Bosworth has been criticised for being miscast as Lois Lane. Personally I always thought Margot Kidder was not only miscast but the weakest link in all the previous films. Whilst Kate may not be the ideal Lois, in my view she's an improvement on Margot for playing the whiny, pseudo independent female lead.
Kevin Spacey is the reason I wanted to see the film. More than anything else. His performance in the movie Se7en as the twisted, moralistic, killer was so convincing that you just know Kevin would add a whole new level of evil to Lex Luthor. Much more of a nemesis for Superman than Gene Hackman's version of the character - and I liked Gene's version. Even though Kevin's appearance in Se7en was brief you have to believe that his character is capable of all the shocking murders once you meet him. Kevin didn't disappoint in Se7en and he didn't disappoint as Lex.
The script was the real let down. It was fantastic in the detail and understanding of each character but it did what all the Superman Movies before it have done. It went beyond the suspension of disbelief in resolving the story. That is the trouble with Superman.
Superman is the greatest of all superheroes. When you watch a Superman movie you expect to see things that you know are clearly impossible for any normal human being but this is Superman so you happily suspend your disbelief. In doing so you make the Superman legend seem plausible. You make Superman seem like someone who could exist.
What destroys that suspension for me is that, whilst Superman is... well... super, everything else around him is subject to the same laws of physics that we all understand. For example, in Superman III (I think) Superman freezes an entire lake, picks it up by one edge and flies it over a chemical plant (I think) fire. There is no way, even Superman could have picked up the frozen lake the way he does.
The ice wouldn't be able to support its self and would break off in his hands. To be even half way believable he would've had to have got underneath it like Superman gets underneath the Krypton island in Superman Returns.
Superman movies are filled with inconsistencies like this.
Another example is in Superman Returns when Superman puts down the shuttle plane he's just rescued, holding it at all times from the nose. Again it would break off in his hands and come down with a bigger and very jarring crash. Note later in the film when he rescues Kitty in her runaway car. Superman puts the car down, supporting it from the middle and then maintains support whilst he puts the front down and then moves to the back of the car. Much more believable.
Granted the aeroplane is a much bigger proposition but there is a fine line between what we believe Superman can do and keeping it within our suspension of disbelief.
For example, some reviewers think that Superman's use of heat vision in Superman Returns to melt falling glass before it hits bystanders on the street is really cool. Sure it is but really, what a useless thing to do. As if all the glass would fall out of the windows at exactly the same time, making it possible for Superman to melt it all in momentary fly by.
Not only that but he only does one street. What about the other side of the buildings on that street? What about the buildings on neighboring streets? Well you can't save everybody but you do what you can, right? It's only a small moment of questioning but it takes you out of the movie.
Back to Superman Returns and the big, giant gaping plot hole inconsistency that has nothing to do with any real physics but is entirely accepted as fact in the Superman legend. Kyptonite is lethal to Superman. It is so lethal that just a small rock of it will render Superman unable to even stand (as per the previous movies and I've even seen him collapse in the TV series Smallville).
This movie wants us to believe that within the proximity of an island of kryptonite (that's an ISLAND not a small rock) Superman can:
Save Lois, Richard and their son (well Superman's son apparently) from a submerged boat that he single handly lifts from out of the water.
Lift a Sea Plane so it can take off.
Lift an ISLAND (did I mention it was an ISLAND) of Kryptonite and fly it into space whilst having a shard of Kryptonite still embeded in his side.
Those three points alone blew it for me. All through the scenes with the ISLAND OF KRYPTONITE (it's an ISLAND for god sake - Luthor encased the crystal in Kyptonite because he wanted to make an ISLAND of Kryptonite so Superman would be rendered powerless) my head was screaming IT'S AND ISLAND OF KRYPTONITE!!!
The trouble with Superman is there is a fine line between what we believe Superman can do and keeping it within our suspension of disbelief. It is for this reason that I've never been able to fully embrace Superman as the pinnacle of what a superhero is.
Batman has always been my favorite because Batman has boundaries. Limits to what he can do that we all understand because Batman is human. Even the latest Spiderman movies never go beyond what you believe the character is capable of even though we don't really understand the physics of Spider powers.
Some day I hope they'll get someone who knows the Superman legend like Christopher Nolan knows the Batman legend. Someone who can keep Superman believable for the entire length of the film. Someone who can make Superman... well... Super.
Painting Jac and West Side Story
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Road Trip Day 25: 16th June 2007
After spending the morning grocery shopping with Rose I chose to spend my Saturday afternoon finishing the painting I started on Wednesday.
As before I filmed myself doing it, even wearing the same clothes so it looks like I painted the whole thing in one day. All up it took me seven hours over two days to get finished. I'm quite happy with the result. The painting is called 'Jac Leaps Again' and is an all acrylic work on plywood, 60 x 90cm approx.
Since, in my first post on this painting, I talked about my old studio I've decided to make that the theme of the video. This means that I'll need to take some time filming footage of me speaking to camera about... well... my old studio. Once I've done this I'll edit the whole thing together so you can watch me paint and talk about my studio at the same time.
Speaking of filming, that's a nice seg-way into talking about the DVD we watched tonight. Rose bought 'West Side Story', the 10 time Oscar winner made some time in the nineteen sixties (I think).
I'm not about to launch into a movie review but I will say, the standards for winning an Oscar must have been very different back then. I thought the whole movie was over choreographed to the point that even the non dance sequences seemed wooden and unnatural.
My biggest problem though was the opening dance number where the Jets (for those of you not familiar with the movie, the Jets are a teenage street gang) are running around trying to act all tough and heavy whilst doing light on your feet, gazelle like dance steps that could've been ripped from Swan Lake. Silly.
It's not a film I particularly enjoyed and I imagine it probably works better in the confines of a smaller stage. The film had way too much space and I feel they wasted time extending the dance numbers to make use of all the extra room the movie sets provided.
Miranda's Bedroom and Searching for C. J. Dennis.
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Road Trip Day 2: 24th May 2007
Rose and I didn't make it to Broken Hill today as planned due to the elusive nature of author, C. J. Dennis or, more correctly, a statue dedicated to the famous Australian Author.
Rose had seen a picture of the statue in one of our travel brochures and wanted to find it for a photo opportunity (having previously snapped a picture of herself with a statue of Australian author, Colin Thiele, on a trip to Eudunda). You would think Auburn, being the birthplace of C. J. Dennis, would be the location of the statue but no.
Auburn has a replica statue of the former Auburn Hotel (since demolished) where C. J. was born but not the statue we were looking for. We did enquire at the local internet cafe/tourist info centre and bike hire shop but the owner there couldn't tell us where the statue we were looking for was.
The brochures we had said that C. J. had spent much of his youth in the township of Mintaro, just north of Auburn. Perhaps the statue was there?
Mintaro is the location of Martindale Hall, the authentic 19th century Georgian mansion, used as the 'Boarding School for Young Ladies' in the Peter Weir film 'Picnic at Hanging Rock'.
Our visit to the hall was certainly worth while even though you are pretty much left to your own devices in wandering around the rooms of this very impressive home. It is a real look back in time at how extravagant some members of Australian society lived in the later part of the nineteenth century. Originally built as a home for entertainment and sporting activities for 21 year old sheep farmer, Edmund Bowman Jnr, later it was sold to the Mortlock family and is still in nearly original condition.
The home was staffed by one butler and 13 female servants and was designed so that the servants could move around the rear section of the building (on both floors) without intruding too much on the front rooms where the occupants lived.
Whilst it was mainly the exterior of the building and the grounds that featured in the movie 'Picnic at Hanging Rock', one bedroom, known as 'The White Room' was also used as Miranda's Bedroom. Miranda being the lead character of the film and one of the school girls who vanishes mysteriously. [Note: After writing this post I watched a DVD Rose purchased of the film and discovered considerably more of the interior is featured however the home's own brochures only make a note of this one room appearing in the movie.]
If you're holidaying in the region it is worth knowing that you can actually stay as a guest at Martindale. All the bedrooms are still used (though fortunately there is modern bathroom and toilet facilities, noting that this home was built at a time when servants used to empty the commodes). As well, the hall hosts special 'Murder Mystery' weeks, 'Incident at Martindale', a role playing game for 10-12 players. Everyone plays a character from the past and the game is played as part of your stay in the grounds.
Unfortunately, C. J. had nothing to do with Martindale so, no statue. Rose and I headed back to the Mintaro township and drove up and down the main street looking for parks that may be ideal for a statue. Nothing. Not even in the Timandra gardens, a 'must see' European style garden that was very nice but no C.J. statue.
We asked the garden tour guide at Timandra if she had any idea as to the location of the statue? She did try to direct us to a statue that she knew of (though she didn't know what it was of). Somewhere along the way we kind of lost track of her directions so we gave up headed off to the town of Clare. Another place we wanted to see.
I thought that was the end of our search for C. J. but a brief stop at the Clare Valley information centre turned up a lead. One of the staff said she knew of the exact statue in the brochure and told us it was located in the town of Laura (another place where C. J. had lived). Odd considering the picture of the statue in the brochure was alongside text talking about Auburn and Mintaro?
Laura was a little too far off track on our way to Broken Hill so we decided to visit the statue on the way back, on our way to the town of Whyalla (our other major stop before heading to Perth).
By the time we got into Clare it was getting quite late in the afternoon and obvious we couldn't make Broken Hill before dark. Over a late lunch at a local cafe we decided to drive as far as the town of Burra and spend the night there.
Approximately 54 kilometres and a fairly scenic drive later we arrived in Burra at 3:50pm. I've been to Burra before on a research trip to the Burra Regional art gallery. We knew the gallery shut at 4pm but managed to have a quick look around as other people were still doing the same. I was a little disappointed that the main exhibition was quilts. Not because they weren't great quilts but because quilts isn't really a creative medium that I've ever wanted to try. Hard to be inspired by something that is outside your creative interests.
Before checking in to the Burra Motor Inn we drove up to the Township and Burra Mine look outs for a quick photo session of the sun setting on the open mine walls.
Tomorrow we will definitely be gunning for Broken Hill. There's not much to see between here and there so hopefully we won't get distracted.
The search for C. J. will continue another day, however, whilst in the motel tonight, I looked up the town of Laura in another brochure we had. Guess who's photo is on the page? If you thought C. J. then you're correct. Not only is his picture on the page but the picture is a picture of the very same statue we were looking for with the caption, 'CJ Dennis Statue, Laura'.
At least we're certain that we know where C. J. is.
This isn't a movie review, it's more of a movie reflection. My thoughts after seeing Spider-man 3 on the cinema screen. I'm assuming, if you're reading this then you have seen the movie. I'm not going to do any kind of story outline or worry about giving away plot details. If you haven't seen it then don't read further.
Before I get on to the movie... WTF is with the movie's official site? Trying to find a cast and crew list is next to impossible, none of the photo galleries have captions and there's precious little text to read outside of the film's blogs. It's a sad day when you have to visit sites not directly related to a film in order to get information about cast and crew. Thanks to Premiere for your great article.
I think it's time director, Sam Raimi, turned his attention else where. Spider-man, the first movie was excellent. Spider-man 2, not too bad. Spider-man 3, it's all gone back to being a cartoon. It reminds me of Joel Schumacher's catch cry on the Batman 3 and 4 sets - "remember we're making a cartoon!" A catch cry that would ultimately doom the franchise for years because Joel didn't take the material seriously.
My biggest criticism of Spider-man 3 lies in the editing. There are several sequences in this movie with a lot happening yet at many points time seems to be suspended for dialog. Case in point, the scene with an out of control crane in which Spidey rescues Gwen Stacy by breaking her fall out of a sky scraper. Cut to the ground. The crane is still out of control and Spidey is talking to new Bugle photographer, Eddie Brock about who is Spidey's official photographer. Err...crane out of control - when you have a moment Spider-man.
This kind of editing happens a lot in the final big fight sequence too. The action elsewhere appears to be suspended whilst we wait for some important dialog between the current protagonists on the screen.
The plot lines are not interwoven well at all. Everything feels to be happening one after the other rather than concurrently (like it should be) in many places.
So lets get onto the whole 'black spidey suit'. Some, unexplained, black, living alien goo crashes to earth in a meteor shower. Not only does Peter and MJ not notice the bright flash of a meteor landing (exploding!) near his motor scooter but the alien goo gets no further explanation as to it's source (and no one back at the science lab where Peter takes a sample of the goo ever questions where it came from?).
The goo when combined into a Spidey suit is meant to enhance the existing powers of the wearer through symbiosis? Okay. This is fiction so I can buy that. Why then does Eddie Brock become the 'anti-spider-man' 'Venom' with all Spider-mans powers when he wears the suit? Eddie Brock doesn't have Spider-man's abilities. Am I supposed to assume that the alien goo absorbed some of Spidey's powers and gave them to Eddie?
Throughout the film, Peter Parker wears the black suit under his street clothes and becomes 'Emo' Peter. At least that is what is implied by the 'emo style' fringe and darker wardrobe. Yet at the same time the suit is making him more confident and self assured. Very un-emo like. Worst scene. Peter Parker dancing, Travolta style down the street thinking he's the coolest thing around. It was meant to be funny (given the reactions he got from passers by) but it just made me cringe like a lame joke told badly.
Getting on to other characters. Harry Osborn (a.k.a. the Green Goblin Junior.) played by James Franco must be the most miscast character of the franchise. He's unconvincing in virtually every scene. He's got a brooding face that looks like a smacked babies behind. Bugs the hell out of me. Aside from that, Goblin and Spidey fight sequences - play it up for the computer game. Boring and predictable. Just like the Pod races in Star Wars, Episode 1. Computer game written all over it.
Sandman. What were they thinking at that particle physics lab? Even the police and their dogs got through that fence to look at whatever that particle generator thingy was? Maybe they weren't too concerned about security because the machine couldn't actually kill you, it would just turn you into a super sandman with incredible strength and an ability to fly with the wind? I hope they had a permit for that thing.
Sand "I've got to get money to save my daughter" man was the most pointless of bad guys in the film. Nice effects to create him though. How gullible is Peter Parker? Every time he was told a new version of his uncle's death he believed it without question? Sandman said he didn't mean to kill Peter's uncle. Sandman is an escaped convict who thinks turning to crime is a rational solution to raise money for his daughter (ever heard of a fund raising dinner? Getting a Job? Applying for a loan?). Everything he says must be true.
Eddie Brock doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who would go to church for any reason let alone to ask God to kill Peter. Yet he does after being humiliated by Peter Parker in the work place. He seems more like the kind of guy that would've got plastered at the nearest bar then confronted Peter in a drunken rage later in the day.
However, Venom has to be the most interesting bad guy of the whole series. Shame he's only there in the last two acts. I thought the effects to create him were spot on and incredibly menacing. Even if I don't understand why Eddie gets Spidey powers? They should have scrapped Sandman and Green Goblin and just done a Spidey/black suit/Venom film. Could've been way fiercer and far more edge of your seat.
Instead the only edge of your seat stuff we have here is various characters at various times potentially plummeting to their death - yawn. Didn't that happen in the other two Spidey films?
My final gripe for this article (I could go on) is, what is it with Spider-man's mask? In all the movies Spider-man ends up fighting without the mask on. Particularly in the major, concluding fight sequences, where hundreds of onlookers, including people that know Peter, are watching. In Spider-man 3 everyone in the crowd at the end is either taking photos or filming for the TV news. How could they not get a picture of Spidey without the mask? Doesn't the TV news own a zoom lense?
I've been knocking this movie the whole way through. I will say it wasn't a bad experience. It was worth going to see. I just hope they do a re-cut for DVD that makes the whole thing flow better. It was the editing, more than anything else, that let this film down. Everything else I can say - well it's fiction so it doesn't have to always make sense.
I'd still by the DVD for the bonus features and Venom.
With all the world focussed on paparazzi, celebrity and stars playing up for the cameras my mind drew an interesting parallel that I thought I'd share.
I was sitting in a kiosk in the Botanical Gardens, Adelaide, South Australia, observing a family of about nine adults at a neighbouring table, one of whom had a young boy of about the age of 2. Not yet old enough to talk many words, still young enough to be totally adorable.
One person there was obviously his mother. I deduced that the others were probably relatives. One or two possibly grandparents? One or two others maybe... aunties?
It was the typical scene with one of the adults sitting the boy in their lap and encouraging him to ham it up a bit whilst everyone looked on eagerly awaiting his too cute reactions. Four of them had cameras.
Two were digital cameras whilst two more were camera phones, eagerly snapping away at this little chap's every giggle and gleam of the eye. Flashes going off every couple of seconds. It was like this toddler had his own personal paparazzi. Baby you're a star!
Not only did he have is own personal paparazzi but I bet he was getting the royal treatment too. Personal assistants all over the place, pushing him around in his own mobile chair, someone to clean his face if he dribbled food...I bet he even had someone to wipe his ar... well, lets not go there.
It's a funny parallel. No wonder real celebrities often behave like children.
Superman Verses the Super Computer.
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Watching ‘Superman III’ on the television the other night, two things stood out during the course of the film.
One was the superb effort of its star, Christopher Reeve, to maintain Superman’s credibility despite an appallingly constructed script that played more for laughs than action adventure. (It’s not hard to see why the franchise died soon after this).
The other was how dated the computer technology in the film is.
Superman III was released in 1982, at a time when computers were still gaining momentum. People knew about them but really didn’t know how they worked. Computer networks in the workplace took up whole rooms. Computers in the home were limited mostly to gaming consoles, and perhaps your classic early consumer computers like the VIC 20.
The Star Villain of Superman III is a Super Computer that can do ‘anything you tell it to do’. Having just been built, this machine first appears in the final half hour. It is huge. Several stories high, completely filling an entire subterranean cavern with wires, buttons, lights, power cables and all manner of electronic gadgets.
In today’s world, I couldn’t help but think, “if they built that now you could probably wear it on your wrist.”
I am South Australian Artist, 'TET' or 'The Extraordinary Tourist'. Read about things that interest me, particularly art, social commentary, humour and life observations. Please feel free to leave a comment by clicking the 'Comments' link at the bottom of each entry.
I'm a creative person trying to make a living selling my art online. Visit my shop to find out if owning a print of my art is right for you. Watch for my ebay auctions of original artworks too!
How to sell your Art without Selling Out Steve Popkin teaches you how in this 27 part course that covers everything you ever wanted to know about selling your own art.
